Jim, There was a story on Morning Edition about this issue on Tuesday. You can hear it here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5005321 They included an interview with a proponent who asked why he thought supernatural explanations should be included in the sciences. He responded that he is not proposing that supernatural explanations be included; rather he is only proposing that explanations not be limited to natural ones. Fortunately, he was "called" on his lack of logic.
Dennis Dennis M. Goff Professor of Psychology Randolph-Macon Woman's College [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: Jim Dougan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 11:39 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences Subject: Redefining Science in Kansas There has been some recent talk here about recent developments in the "Intelligent" design controversy in Kansas. But, the TIPs discussion has not touched on what I think is the most frightening aspect of the story. What I find most troubling is that the board of education has apparently redefined science. Here is a quote from an AP story: "In addition, the board rewrote the definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena." Unfortunately, I have not been able to get any additional details. Does anyone know exactly how science is now defined? -- JIm Dougan --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
